How did the social distribution of literacy skills vary in early modern Britain, and what are the implications of that variation

Table 1 Male signature literacy, c. 1580-1700

However, amongst these groups there are more subtle graduations.  Such as merchants, grocers, and haberdashers had literacy rates of around 90%.  Below them, weavers, tailors, blacksmiths, butchers, carpenters and shoemakers were within the range of 60-40%, whereas those working in hard-labour and there was not much need for book reading, such as miners, bricklayers, labourers and thatchers, had literacy levels of 10%.  The reason for this low number literacy rate for labourers etc is argued differently by different historians.  

Here we can argue what implications this variation between classes had.  Cressy and  O’Day both state the effect of this variation is not huge, asserting state literacy was not always needed for religion or for every job.  O’Day states it was quite easy to live comfortable and even prosper in the 17th Century, backed up by the view of Cressy who states the countrymen need only know how to farm, as they have neighbours who were literate if they ever needed a will or letter written, and often only oral confirmation was needed for manors of court.  Indeed, it was usually seen as more useful for the child to carry on working, rather than be educated.  Seen in the source of Thomas Tyron, Son of a Tiler, who was taken from school at the age of 6:

‘Scarcely learnt to distinguish my letters, before I was taken away to work for my living.’  And he later went on to read form help of a friend, and learnt to write by means of a writing instructor.  This source is useful, showing us what the lower classes felt of literacy; that working was more important, and how they found ways to be educated; by their friends and neighbours.  It is reliable and useful as it is from the time of the period, 1705, so gives us a more accurate view of the attitude at the time. And in Wrightsons’ book, it states countrymen could ‘plow and harrow, sew and reape, brune and bake, all without booke.’ The lower classes did have some access to schools, such as Charity schools set up by the church.  Many people earned money by helping their friend, relative or neighbour learn to read.  I.e. Robert Lowe, whose prime means was retailing, but earned money by writing for his neighbours in 1660s,   Yet Sharpe believes the lower classes did want to be literate, seen in the source of Oliver Sanson, whom in 1638 was ‘put into a school to a woman, to learn to read.’ Saying this did have an effect on them, as it made them envious of the rich.  One of the main effects is the gap between the elite gentry and lowest class was heightened, whereby the elite became more polarized and even more separate form the middling class and lower class, using education to prove their continued existence and power.

        Along with this social distribution, there were differences between genders.  Educating women was seen as unnecessary.  Evidence for this is seen when in 16th Century, only 5% of women were literate, this changed only slightly by the end of the 17th Century, when 15% of women were literate..  Also, when James I was introduced to a ‘learned maid’, who spoke and wrote in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, he was unimpressed and stated, ‘but can she spin?’.  This demonstrates women were thought to stay at home and look after their family, and sew.  It is useful as it was from the time of the period, from a reliable source, the King.  Although, it could be argued he stated this for propaganda reasons, not wanting to look soft.  However, Cressy and Houston both gather evidence to show there were many literate women.  Yet, these are mostly in the elite classes, when women were able to be educated as they were rich.  Shown when Cressy declares, in London, 78% of women could not sign their names, in 1670s, 52% and just 44%v in 1720s.  Houston declares in the North women in the 1640s, in the elite class, were 76% literate..  Yet, this is only elite woman; those in the lower classes were considerably lower than male counterparts.  Thus, I think there were not too many implications of this social distribution as it is evident some women were literate.  However, one implication is it heightens the gap between the urban, elite women and the rural, lower class women.  

Another social distribution is geographically.  To begin with, those in cities were significantly more literate than in rural areas.  The signature rates for London and Cheshire in 1640s were 78% and 48% respectively, compared to national average of 30%.  The reason for London having such a high rate is because the majority of elite live there, as there is the Inns of Courts there.  Also, L.Stone states the South had higher literacy rates, 60%, than the North, 15-20%.  Yet, Cressy argues there was high literacy in areas near London, i.e. Hertfordshire was 74% illiterate and Berkshire 74%.  Indeed, closely linked parishes often varied in rates. I.E, Cornish parishes’ literacy rate arranged from 50% to 6%.  It is shown cities have higher rates of literacy than towns and towns than villages; seen in Newcastle where 80% literate in towns, compared to 50% in Village.  This demonstrates the difference geographically literacy rates were, urban areas more literate than rural.  The implications of this distribution is the urban areas, in particular the cities, were becoming more centralised and more detached from the rural areas.  As the South was more literate than the North, England was almost being split in half, meaning there was not an equal distribution of educated individuals.  Thus the more illiterate places will be poorer economically and in worst physically, as they lack educated people, such as doctors.  

There has always been a debate on whether quantitative or qualitative evidence is better to help determine how social distribution of literacy varied.  Quantitative factor, based on signatures, is a very controversial matter and mnay of the evidence I have used already is based on this.  Cressy believes it is less than perfect, but the best information available to us.  Yet, Sharpe disagrees with this, arguing it is an inaccurate.  There are a variety of reasons for this.  One of these is reading and writing were taught separately, with writing treated as a skill acquired after a person had learned to read. In middle ages, if people could read, they were seen as literate.  Thus, because people could not sign or write their name, it did not mean they were illiterate. Also, there was a lack of writing materials in many homes, as they were expensive to buy.  Yet, even though historians such as Reary agree signatures give us an overestimate of those who were literate, they agree it still gives us a bare minimum and rough idea.  Sharpe argues against this, stating because one can sign their name, it does not mean they can read and write.  Indeed, this is backed by Houston, who declares many signatures were just markings and thus did not show they could write. However, we cannot declare they cannot read.  As Margaret Spufford argues; ‘reading was a much more socially diffused skill than writing’.  Many of those who scratched a cross may be able to read but not write.  A major problem is it difficult to measure the extent of hidden readers, as Keith Thomas argued  it was a ‘spectacular underestimation.’.  Yet, Cressy argues we should set aside what one signature says, and turn instead to the lessons that can be learnt from their aggregation, the literacy figures of women to tradesmen, Londoners to Countrymen are so robust and clear cut, scholars with distaste for quantitative social history are generally willing to employ it.  Yet, I disagree with Cressy’s view. Just because people could sign their name, they could have learnt it by memory and not actually be able to write.

Another way in to discover the social distribution is through the amount of print.  There were many types of literature available, chapbooks, almanacs, ballads and books.  Once the printing press had been introduced to England, printing grew rapidly, with over 400,000 almanacs being sold per year in the 17th Century, and several million ballad copies by end of 16th Century. With this in mind, some historians such as Sharpe believe this shows a demand for print from all society.  However many historians argue against this, stating, it is still hard to justify using number of prints of books as evidence.  This is because we do not know who bought books; it could be the elite are buying it in large quantity, or the middle classes in large quantity.  Indeed, this idea is backed by the fact chapbooks and  almanacs cost 2d. to 6d. and as labourers only earn 12d, a day, most of which is not disposable, they may not be able to buy these books.  Yet, Spufford argues these prints were widespread, seen when hawkers travel the nations selling books.  Overall, it is not a fully justified reliable evidence, as people may just be read the chapbooks for example, instead of actually reading them themselves.  Or indeed, seen in the example by the historian Vincent, Thomas Colcroft, who helped in parents in rural Berkshire in 1705, was given two chapbooks to read, which he read over and over.  Showing the amount of chapbooks printed is not a 100% valid source to determine how many people could read.

The Church had an effect on the distribution of literacy, using books to promote Protestant political causes, wanting lower classes to learn to read, thus understand religion, particularly true throughout reformation.  They setup Charity schools which were free and were a ‘society for promoting Christianity knowledge in 1698.’  An implication of this is the church and state soon realised giving too much reading ability to the masses may be a disadvantage, as they may begin to think for themselves and rebel against the Bible and the state.

Overall, I believe there were many different ways literacy was distributed socially.  I believe the major distribution was between the different social groups, whereby the elite were far more educated than the lower classes.  However, although I partly agree with Cressy, that signatures are quite useful, because the figures do show the rough idea of where, class ways, education was going, other social ways, it is harder to determine.  For example, geographically, it is hard to determine between villages and towns as those who signed their names may have just memorized it.  Yet, I do agree cities were far more literate than towns and rural areas.  Between genders, there is an obvious divide, men were far more literate than a woman, which is not a great surprise as women were though to be more educated in other ways, such as sewing, and thus the implication is not too great.  Yet, to an extent it is, as women in London were 75% literate, it may make men fear the rise of educated women, although there is not too much evidence for this.

---